Reflections

A funny observation for a pretty progressive-minded person like myself:

It's been quite a while since, in a public debate, I have felt a deep philosophical solidarity with my conservative brothers and sisters :)

The position to change the name has a strong and logical argument. It makes sense. I just can't support it, though. And I just can't believe that there's not something more to the equation that I haven't seen addressed--namely, among other factors, the almighty dollar.

Nonetheless, I wish this show many, many blessings. For me, the question is less about what name I like and more what's truly in the best interest of the public.

When I read through a few dozen of these comments it's evident that there is no clear shared understanding of what is meant by the word "being". It is not unfair to say that everything that we humans experience is pertenet to and a part of our being wheather it is intelectual, existential, metaphysical, etc. Faith more specifically is an act of living as if somthing is so and hence a direction to be investigated. Will the guests be provided with a definition of what is meant by "being"? I love the show and Krista, but this new name sounds like a rudderless boat concerning a direction! "What is in a name?"- does anyone think it's a good idea to change the name of the "New York Yankees" to the "Big Apples" to attract a wider fan base- After all the content would remain the same. A title with such a broad possible definition is a blunt tool for the task before it!

more liberal control the boss at npr felt the heat, because the show was possibly considered conservatave. this lady is so liberal it isnt funny. embrace and celebrate with a little juxstaposition for fun

Kirsta: I am puzzled and a bit disappointed in the choice of a new name for Speaking of Faith. First, I wonder about the inclusion of your name in the title. Although you bring an wonderful sensibility to the programming that is thoughtful, unique and compelling, I believe that all media content should be as independent from its presenters as possible. I'd also like to think the show could continue without you (only if necessary) because of what you've done to gather a creative team who have all helped to nurture the show to its maturity. My other concern is the overly broad nature of the word 'being." "Being" seems to me to encompass an all-inclusive box. What could possibly be left outside it? I agree with you that the original concept of "faith" as a central axis was likely too limiting. I have many difficulties with the word in general so I understand that problem. Perhaps the word you and others were looking for is "belief." Any discussion of ethics and meaning is impossible without its consideration. Belief and its myriad of attendant meanings would have helpful in describing the character of the program with a specificity better suited for its content. Best of luck with all your journeys. Thanks for listening.

Your show is the highlight of my week. It is my "church," connecting with the best in myself. Thank you for your incredible work.

When I first heard the new name, I liked it because it implies choices and action in the real world, instead of just something ephemeral. But as I read the comments and thought about it, I wish the name would stay they same because "Speaking of Faith" is way more open and way more accessible to all. And I think that is what you probably really want to be?

on Being is a good new opening description for your program. Just listening to your program today with Mike Rose (which may have been a rebroadcast), inspired me to write a haiku poem about the topic.One heart unites ourhands and mind in unity;to share love with all. 8/29/10

Someone here said that being is us faith is beyond us, therefore, they are sad that the name has changed. Well not everyone has faith and the word itself is very ambiguous. I don't mind the name change, but I am not the biggest fan of having Mrs. Tippett's name in it. I feel that the show is more about the guests than Mrs. Tippett. She is like a mediator in a debate, and a mediator's name is mentioned not promoted. But I am grateful that she interviews such guests and exposes them to the world. I am an atheist and I have been listening to the show for some time now. I don't use the word faith the way most people do nor do I perceive it as many people might, but the word did not deter me from listening to the station. The word Being is more relevant to me as a humanist and a spiritual person.... So to sum it up I don't really mind the name change as long as the content of the show does not dramatically change. The fans of this station who truly care about the content of the show will not mind the name change as much. I think this is a smart marketing strategy to obtain a greater audience. This is a wonderful radio station.

I am happy for the name change. As an atheist, I was initially tuned off by what I thought would be a program exclusively for religious people, reinforcing belief ... not thinking about it. But through listening to the show for a few episodes, I have learned that belief is not assumed on, ironically, speaking of faith.

The content is the most significant factor; I would hate to see it evolve into a show that incorporates so many topics that it loses its focus. I have so enjoyed, and even relished, being able to hear and learn about faith and spirituality from so many perspectives. I can see, however, that the name "Speaking of Faith" would unfortunately be unappealing to some; sadly, "faith" has been co-opted by certain sectors in a way that turns others off. I'd prefer to keep the focus on faith and spirituality, but I know marketing is important if we want the show to continue. Still, I'm not feeling great about the name change. While some of that may be resistance to change, I think there are two other considerations. I agree that Krista's name doesn't seem to fit in the title; it sounds as if she will be speaking every week for the entire hour. (I did see the comment farther down that generally Krista's name won't be used in the title but this could still be re-phrased for the transition). "On Being" sounds too general and vague. Will people who don't know this show be pulled in by that? I'm doubting it. Some of the suggestions below were quite good and more specific.

I think Being comes across as too internal and passive (even though we could say all activity is included in Being). The people you interview tend to speak more about how they are actually living/doing their faith or that which inspires them, which makes the show for me all the more nourishing. I might have chosen another word that encapsulates all of this or would add a word to Being. Being and ____ing.

I also have conserns about the inclusion of the name "Krista Tippet" formost in the title. It seems to imply the host commenting on being rather than examing the ideas of others. I would prefer the "with Krista Tippet" used at the end as is currently done or a similar construction putting the name at the end. It would not work as "Being with Krista Tippet", but "On Being with Krista Tippet" or something like this would work.I also like the "Being Human" idea posted previously.

I was surprised and delighted when public radio hosted a show that included "Faith" in the title. It was a bold statement that the category of religion and the questions that it asks - and the many ways it has answered them - was far from dead. I relished listening to the shows.

Of late, the show has had less and less to do with faith, and has lacked focus. THe new title, "Being" is so nebulous that just about anything will fit under it.

I'm sorry to see that the bold experiment, by succeeding in gaining an audience, was also over-run by the dominant discourse of our times, which is more willing to stop discussing the transcendent than to deal with the "barriers" of people who don't want to hear about it.

The name would matter little if it did not reflect the shift in what you want to do. "Speaking of Faith" set out to find a conversation among those who would speak; it found a large-enough audience and brought you significant recognition. A show on "Being" may find a potpourri of topics that will interest more people - but not with the depth and meaning of your original topic. Too bad it couldn't last.

We will continue to wrestle with topics distinctly wrestling with faith its most overt sense. But, to "discuss the transcendent" with individuals is broad and deep, and not strictly formalized. A title change will not dictate that pursuit but open it up to the many who may not classify themselves as faithful or spiritual, yet have a perspective or curiosity that shapes the meaning of their lives in a mystical way. We can all learn from those on the margins, non?

I'm sorry that the show's creator feels she has to make the vessel larger to contain these conversations, as though faith is the narrow, cramped, exclusionary thing that the show's fans know it is not. She is the genius and the visionary behind the show, but it is neither genius nor visionary to call the show after herself. The beauty of the show is that it's not about her or any one person, but about people and ideas she has the curiosity, courage and playfulness to invite. "Being" isn't a more profound word, it's just a trendy one that carries at least as much troubling baggage as "faith" ever will. The show had the power to help us redeem the word and the notion of faith. A pity that this no longer seems worthwhile to he marketing gurus.

I hope to be posting today or tomorrow about names we considered but decided against. It has not been an easy or automatic process! But I do want to just restate, for the record, the new program name is, in most applications, "Being." We felt it was very important at this transitional time to make sure Krista's name was prominently in the title, to assure people that the Krista conversation remained central to what we do. We understand the word faith can be large and spacious. But many many people find it narrow, and off-putting.

Finally, while we did work with some "marketing gurus" and were grateful for their work, the idea to change the name was not thrust upon us. For all the reasons cited in Krista's blog, it became clear a name change was becoming essential. Thanks for writing.Kate Moos, Managing Producer

Since free choice is a possibility,not a certainty. Since we don't know for sure that we know anything. Faith and Being could be synonymous. Either program name works for me.It's blind faith in perceptional all the way. What I'm interested in is less,and not more, pretense.That is why I like your show.

Just wanted to express support for the show, Krista, and the dialogue she has created. I liked the old name and will need to get used to the new one but I'm sure in time I will like it just as much! Keep up the good work.

It is humanity's ever-warped sense of "God given" entitlement and intolerance of others that creates war, not man's faith. I've been told, by my religion, I deserve something I am not getting, or that I perceive you to be threatening, therefore I respond with force, exclusion, or hatred. The irony is that "God" provides to all equally, regardless of faith. It's the human "beings" who are the fly in the ointment.

As a northerner now transplanted in the bible belt, I confronted an enormous amount of religiosity. Socially, people were localized in various camps with usually rigid viewpoints. When mentioning some of the wonderful topics of SOF, the usual reaction was retreat. I determined that the title did cause many to be uncomfortable by the possible intrusion on their personal religious domains. I welcome the openness that the new title embraces and perhaps some of my friends and acquaintances will too.

Reading the earlier comments I realized that "Faith and Being" would be a better name. There is an edge where faith and being meet, or a tension in the space between them the is worthy of investigation. But being alone, prompts the great debate proposed by our former president. It becomes an exploration of "what is is."

" A rose by any other name" would be an appropriate quote. In the discussions that Krista has urged we all carry on, the name of the show, and enterprise is not as important as the content. SPEAKING OF FAITH or now BEING holds some of the finest dialog on some of the most meaningful matters we all deal with.. MOVE ON !!

I'm not sure my words adequately expresses "being" for me. But, it leads me experientially into a natural home coming, which at this time, I'm not able to sustain for long, but I long to return. I eagerly look forward to the shared journey on our Being program

Dearest Krista: You could rename the show "Beer & Skittles," and I would remain a devoted (even devout) listener, as long as you continue having such searching and insightful conversation with so many deeply fascinating people. All the best to you....

I will remain a devoted listener of the show even if it is inartfully named. "Krista Tippett on Being" sounds like a lecture, not a conversation. This is unfortunate because the show is all about the exchange of ideas. I think "Belief and Being with Krista Tippett" would have been much better. But, the name change is obviously a done deal, folks. The show made the change and then has asked listeners to "grow into this new name." The show didn't ask listeners for input until after the fact. The process of choosing a name would have been enhanced with broader input. But, it did not happen. I'll just get used to it and continue to enjoy the show.

What does Being mean? I am disappointed in the new title. There are plenty of programs that de-emphasize faith and I liked the focus of this one. I just hope the new name doesn't change having the wonderful people of faith who have appeared in interviews

As a loyal listener, I have found a multitude of meanings of FAITH in my own life through your wide range of topics and guests. This is what a catholic (small c) understanding of faith truly requires. BEING on the other hand is so broad and politically correct as to mean nothing. I find this a worrisome trend, especially in my Unitarian Universalist faith, where many are ceding words like "faith", "god" and religion" to the narrow-minded fundamentalist (small f) usage of the word. I would look especially to your show to redefine and reclaim rather than abandoning use of those loaded words, for fear of offending some. Growing faith often requires making folks uncomfortable from time to time and as my minister says "afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted". So, no I do not like the new program title, but will continue to be a loyal listener, as I find your topics, guests, music production values and terrific terrific website an important resource in my spiritual growth. Keep up the excellent show!

P.S. I vote for "Belief and Being with Krista Tippett" over ""Beer & Skittles with Krista Tippett" :)

I would definitely agree that the name change really appeals to a much broader spectrum of Americans in today's society. I just think that anything labeled "religion" or "faith" might not be as enticing to some groups as the word "being". The word "being" really seems to include everyone, which is really quite agreeable.

I would definitely agree that the name change really appeals to a much broader spectrum of Americans in today's society. I just think that anything labeled "religion" or "faith" might not be as enticing to some groups as the word "being". The word "being" really seems to include everyone, which is really quite agreeable.

I would definitely agree that the name change really appeals to a much broader spectrum of Americans in today's society. I just think that anything labeled "religion" or "faith" might not be as enticing to some groups as the word "being". The word "being" really seems to include everyone, which is really quite agreeable.

I feel sad there is so much prejudice over the word faith. Those of us who have found strength, hope and the same answers that so many of your guests have found but in more traditional ways are asked to be welcoming, open, non judgemental and yet the same courtesey is not given. Yours (yes even if it was just a name) was a welcoming place for us on Public Radio. "Being" is a statement of a faith with a strong, possibly self focused, postmodern bias and a system of belief that leaves the traditional out. The name change is inevitable I guess but it marginalizes your loyal more traditional listeners even more. The name change will certainly not hurt our loalty however you still remain an incredibly insightful, spiritual, and compassionate interviewer and I will continue to look forward to each show what ever you call it.

I decided to log on to the web site after having heard you talk about the new title for several weeks. I had understood you to say that the new title was "From Faith to Being", which I thought was not good. Now I understand that the new title is "Being" -- but I have to say that I still don't like it. "Speaking of Faith" is distinct, easy to say, and easy to hear. The word "Being" is an indistinct word -- much less suited to radio (where one relies on the auditory) than is "Speaking of Faith". The name change will not affect my listening habits -- my husband and I tune in your show every Sunday and think it's great. I've never bothered to congratulate and thank you, so I do that now. I hope that the name changes works out well for you, despite my misgivings.

Extremely disappointed with the this Orwellian name change. So some listeners and programmers found it difficult to get past the word "Faith"? Is that a reason to make it easy for them by using a spiritually empty word like "Being." An amoeba has "being." Perhaps that is the demographic the NPR executives are going for with their intellectually dishonest hatchet job. Clearly this title was forced on you by some NPR programmer or executive since you admit you "didn't have an immediate enthusiastic reaction." Very, very sad.

My gut reaction to the name change was neutral, but as I read through the comments, I really wanted to come to its defense. Ultimately, though, I find myself wanting to change the name again. I like what some people suggested: "Being Human." It seems to take care of the "amorphous" complaint without introducing a concept that anyone could find objectionable.

Sometimes rebranding is a good idea; sometimes, not. My city of Fort Worth decided to adopt this new slogan, "When You Get Here, You'll Get It" and retire the old one, "Where the West Begins." You can guess what happened to the new one... When things shook out a year or so later, we got "City of Cowboys and Culture." Not catchy, but at least authentic.

Your program has been helping rehabilitate the word "faith" for me. I grew up with a very narrow definition of the word, rejected that narrowness, and have been struggling ever since to make peace with the word. Your program has help me appreciate that a broad definition does not have to be shallow. For that reason, I've come to appreciate the title despite initial wariness. I have to admit that "Being" doesn't have the same resonance for me. No matter, though. It's the programs I cherish, not the name. Thank you so much for let us listen in on people of faith who are also people of substance, compassion, and creativity. I hope that doesn't change with the name change.

I believe that the name change will completely open up a new area of listeners to your station. By changing the name to "being" opens up a more welcoming door to everyone. I hate to say this but people, humans, just about everyone has a little fear towards religion. Especially the ones they do not understand. Why not create a more comfortable atmosphere for everyone? The word "faith" can mean everything to some people and can be confusing to everyone else because not everyone is very sure about their faith. Some people question it, I know I do. I think that changing the name with "being" will help open up Americans hearts.

I think that the words "faith" and "being" have EVERYTHING to do with religion. What better way to describe how religion can make you feel, understand, learn. They relate and have everything to do with eachother. Personally, I do not think I could describe religion with any other words.

I'm really disappointed in the name change, from, Speaking of Faith, to this more abstract idea of "Being," tagged onto Krista Tippett's name. This appears to be yet another reflection of the narcissism that I had hoped issues of "faith" might address. The work of responding to the ardent idea of "being" echoes the self (human "being") and it's efforts at understanding rather than living in the gray mystery that is evoked when one speaks of faith and tells its particular stories. The goal, I believe, is to point to the Other and not to the self. This name change doesn't point that way at all.

It doesn't sit well, and I hope it gets dumped soon. Obviously I agree with the majority of posters who have responded negatively, finding it ambiguous, poorly justified, etc. Like many I also feel including Ms. Tippett's name so prominently in the title is at the very least a distraction. Two thumbs down!

Now THAT'S a name that I can get behind: From Faith to Being WITH Krista Tippett. Please consider that adaptation!

Also, in re: to Krista's recent reflection:

In short, and in part, you write of how we often need to let go of words. I think that's a very compelling argument with much truth in it. But I don't think that's the contention that most people have here: I think that what we are worried about is that the name change signals a deeper and more underlying change. Given "faith's" long and detrimental history of compromise and institutionalization, especially in the context of our capitalistic system, we have good reason to be opposed. I just wish that our loud and palpable opposition would be heeded to some extent. WE are the people, after-all, that have ultimately determined the success that this show has seen thus far.

I fully support the name change. I believe it will open your conservation on the spiritual and mindful journey of life to a much wider audience and will enhance and stimulate the sharing of ideas. Change and adaptation is a natural part of life and growth. Those who do not support the change will adapt if they truly support the sharing of ideas you have worked so hard to bring to this public forum. Thanks.

Given the overall excellence of the program, I can't get too concerned about what it is called. That said, the new name loses two nuances that I find attractive. "speaking of" makes clear that this is not just conversation, but conversation that can wander and is open to associational rather than linear thinking. Secondly, as some others have said, "faith" implies that we are focused on border region where reason loses some of its steam and other ways of "knowing" become alive for us. Moving into such territories demands a certain humility about, well, our certainty about the nature of Being. I'm sure the program will continue to demonstrate that humility but the name no longer implies it.

I remain agnostic about the title change -- although I can understand some of the reasons behind it. Nevertheless, what I confess troubles me is Krista'c comment at the start of her letter that "Being" will broaden the scope of programming as "not confined to Sunday mornings or Friday evenings, not on the sidelines of real life, but at the essence of who we are and how we live, individually and collectively." The implication of course that what those of us who work faithfully in struggling with these questions in the friday night and Sunday morning communities of faith are indeed marginal and on the sidelines of life. I don't believe that's true, at least I hope it isn't, and yet it is a troubling perspective held by many in our culture I fear and one I hope will not be supported by our friends at Speaking of Faith as part of the change of focus. We in the faith communities seek to address those questions, often also addressed by Krista and her guests, in fact by some of the very folks she seems to marginalize in her comments.

Krista,I'm always amazed at how critical of you/the show some of my fellow listeners are. I must admit I never had an issue with the name Speaking of Faith, but I thank you for sharing with us your reason for changing it. Those are compelling reasons and upon reflection I see that I have also been reluctant to tell some of my friends about my enthusiasm for this show because of the name.

It's your show, call it what you want. I'm fairly certain that your thought process has been more rigorous and thorough than anything I can manage to do in thirty seconds, so I don't feel terribly entitled to an opinion about it. I'll still be here, week after week, downloading podcasts and listening again and again, awaiting your next book.

Thanks for this show, and all it has brought to my spiritual and intellectual life.

I love this radio broadcast; it's the only one I listen to religiously and takes me back to the golden days of the Lone Ranger, Racket Sqaud and Johnny Dollar except they were in the evening and today, in my neck of the woods, Speaking of Faith airs at 7:00 am Sunday mornings.

Now to the name change: I'm sorry, but I can't wrap my mind or my heart around this one: "Being" looks and sounds like a dangling participle. If you're stuck on having "Being" be part of your new title then it needs a modifyer that gives it a context, such as "On Being" or "Thoughts on Being" or my favorite, "Humane Being".

Whatever you folks decide to Christen your show, I will continue to dutifully rise and shine on Sunday's and have my coffee ready at the stroke of 7:00 for the news headlines and then, for Krista's magic. Whatever you call it, just keep the imagination, excellence and provocative nature of your program going. Superb radio that wouldn't be the same on cable.

"The story we have heard again and again is that people have had to get over the title....We have heard that, for religious and non-religious people alike, the title Speaking of Faith makes it hard to talk about the program with friends and family...." Krista--great show--awful decision. Bowing to fundamentalist humanists, prickly secularists, and militant atheists who are made uncomfortable, even "offended" by the word faith. I'm offended that the beautiful word "faith" is seen as somehow offensive, loaded with baggage and therefore needs to be jettisoned. For someone who claims (rightfully most of the time) to be inclusive and accepting, your name change shows a real close-mindedness. What about the folks offended by "being"? What slippery term can we come up with next. Great show--I will still listen. Wrong decision. Very disappointed.

I'm sorry about this. The transcendent needs grappling. Faith. Faith. Faith. Deal with it. The fact is, there has already been a shift in direction even as SOF. I've worn out the archives. I keep hoping for something new that is grounded. Nourishing. Not happening. Too bad.

The change from "Speaking of Faith" to "on Being" seems to me very welcome. For too long Christians and others have accepted and encouraged the use of "faith" as a euphemism for "God" or "religion." But these aren't synonyms.

For instance "salvation by faith" doesn't mean "salvation by God" (though God is necessarily involved) any more than it means "salvation by religion." Since "faith" is a word signifying trust, obviously "speaking of faith" ought to have interviews with accountants on 401Ks, for example. Or, more seriously, on the faith or trust we have in a friend or a boss or a cleric or a parent. Faith (trust) in human reason or in atheistic or agnostic skepticism is also a meaningful theme.

If, as the host proposes, the reference to "Be" takes us to a consideration of "I will be who I will be" or "I am who I am" (Exodus 3:14) (am is part of the verb to Be), the title will remind listeners of God (Elohim, al-Lah) better ever than "faith" did. (Freud's "Where id was, there shall ego be" (quoted by Ernest Jones) points in the direction of Exodus 3:14. What is the Hebrew for "I will be what it was"? That would be Nietzsche's version, imply'd in "Thus I will'd it.")

Great. The problem with "faith" is that everyone has it but most people now use it as if it is the same thing as "religious faith." This is not a good thing. It is done all the time with other words too. Everyone is a "believer" and everyone is in a "faith community" of some type. We don't properly engage the beliefs and faiths of atheists and agnostics if we limit the category of "belief" to religious belief and "faith" to religious faith. And as for "religion AND the secular" -- - oh boy, a topic for another day! Best, Iain Benson, Southwest France

I am mourning the loss of "Speaking of Faith." It is the one place on NPR (beside an occasional song, joke, or story point on a "Pairie Home Companion") where a huge part of the lives of many Americans is acknowledged to exist and explored sympathetically from an insider's perspective. I am always stunned that "This I Believe" never includes a confession of faith, that "Story Core" never has a testimony of a spiritual experience, and so on. I think this ostensible effort to be hospitable is really just an invitation for people of faith to stick to their own alternative media outlets, knowing that NPR is so embarrassed by them that it cannot even bring itself to say as innocuous a word as "faith." I saw "Speaking of Faith" as a tiny little corner in which a big area of life was finally acknowledged to exist - a corner now taken over by the same imperialistic policy of every other hour 24/7 on the station.

Sorry but I do not like the name change. Speaking on Fatih and the line "religion meaning, ethics and ideas" fit the show perfectly. Being is too vague, too short and feels like your trying to be policaly correct. The intrigue of your show was that it was not afraid to take on the contoversial. Now it feels as if your trying to apease the marketers who are squeemish of the word faith. I am non-religious but have always enjoyed hearing the views and new subjects presented on your show. The name change is annoying but I will continue too listen. Thanks

This is a welcome change for those of us who do not belong to a faith or belief based religion, but rather belong to one based on knowing and being.Belief and Faith are charged words which, to many of us mean putting trust in the con. To understand where I come from, read "My Big TOE" by Thomas Campbell.Thomas posits that belief is trust in false knowledge, and that to know truth, one must experience it. There is really no objective existence, but is rather subjective.You may be interested in My-Big-Toe.com for more information, as well as monroeinstitute.com.

Life moves on and if you listen to the program it is more about being than faith. I like the little travels beyond organized religion that the program sometimes takes us on. We have faith that you will keep being outside the box.

I offer, tongue-in-cheek the experience of this household around the name change. We are basically of a mind that "a rose by any other name...", but our references to the entertainment formerly known as Speaking of Faith have now become "Speaking of Being", and, if this unfortunate transitional error in our verbal lookup tables were not bad enough, it shortens to SOB. Please, anyone who reads this, consult with Men (or Women) In Black at the first opportunity to look at the light ray thing that they carry to erase memory.All that said, essence of humanity is always your theme in some guise, and your productions greatly enrich. "Being" is distinctive, perhaps more so, and of scope more befitting your productions, than SOF.

I am so happy about the change to "Being." It is much more inclusive. The word "faith" carries with it so much in the way of traditional religious meaning, and seems to be heavy on the Christian side these days. But "being" can encompass the views of everyone who celebrates life, and everything about it, in wonderfully divers ways.

I enjoyed the journey back this morning; it reminded me of how satisfying journalistic excellence and the intimacy of radio can be.

But nothing in this morning's homage convinced me that "Speaking of Faith" had outlived its usefulness; in fact, just the opposite. I won't reiterate my comments below, but I must say that your reminiscant selections today pointed to one thing: That "speaking" implies relationship, between and amongst peoples. "Faith" implies, as one of your speakers spoke today, an expectation of surprises. Another way of putting it is that 'faith" is an act; and "acts" build faith. Faith enables us to embrace the mysteries of life, not run from them.

I dare say that each morning I wake, and face a day that I planned, suprises abound; some welcome and some not so welcome. Faith is what keeps me going on the bad days; faith in something greater than myself. On the good days, faith in myself helps me to persevere.

Each day, I am faced with the mystery of the past, the present and the future; each day I live with the tension of "not knowing. Each day I muster faith to go on; each day I must speak of this struggle.

The term "being" seems too static, stoic and stolid to encompass your vision The term "being" has no context, no present, no past and no future. "Being" has nothing of the spaciousness of "Speaking of Faith". "Being" does not breathe.

Good for you. While I find it frustrating that people found it difficult to get themselves to listen or speak to others on the basis of the old title, I understand it. And, of course, Being is the bigger picture. I try to remind my congregation that religion is not about being churchy, it's about life. In that vein, faith is not primarily about believing various religious or spiritual principles, but about who/what we are. Being is the larger envelope. But, scarier to many.Good luck. (The Rev.) Hank Galganowicz

I stopped listening to this show several years ago after it became clear that there was little hope of it becoming more inclusive and elucidative of conservative spirituality, and that it would consequently remain predictably limited in its ability to elucidate spirituality in general, including liberal spirituality. Hearing the promos suggesting a possible new beginning, I tuned in again, but I fear Ms. Tippett is correct when she says, "This doesn’t signal a change in the nature or ethos of what we will continue to produce week after week." Indeed, if anything, the new name signals more clearly the guiding bias of the show; it's redolent of the vaguely open lefty philosophy of a generation or more ago that, like most dominant secular intellectual movements, was adopted by many intellectual religious thinkers trying to find a home in the secular intellectual world.

Speaking of Faith hasn't lived up to its way-too-expansive tag line. It has always been driven by the personal interests of Tippett, who has her own particular set of concerns and biases. It has, in my experience, generally privileged liberal spirituality and, at times, liberal politics, and has generally failed to include, suppressed and even misrepresented conservative spirituality and politics. It has privileged doubt, process, search and flexibility of belief about what's distinctive of the spiritual over certitude, conclusion, and firmness of belief about that. It has privileged new thinking about the old over old thinking about the old, the idea of inclusiveness over exclusiveness, the marginal over the mainstream. Its implicit opposition to conservative fundamentalism has hidden its own fundamentalism (or metafundamentalism).

Years ago, when I complained via email about the lack of balance in the show (balance being a major value in the much neglected CPB Guidelines), I received a courteous response from Kate Moos explaining that they had tried to transcend the distinction between liberal and conservative and generally paid no mind to it, and that what are called conservative religious figures already get lots of exposure elsewhere.

Those are poor excuses. Ignoring something doesn't make it go away, it merely facilitates denial. Tippett, Moos and others responsible for the content of the show need to be more clear to themselves about their biases and more assertive about getting beyond them. Their aversion to and poor understanding of conservative values, including conservative fundamentalism, that are so important to understanding American and world spirituality, leaves a huge part of spiritual life unintelligible and disrespected.

As it is, Speaking of Faith, by whatever name, contributes to the ghettoization of the media, the division of media and audiences along partisan lines, which decreases mutual understanding and self-understanding. That conservatives may tune elsewhere to hear what they're more sympathetic to doesn't help them or liberals. We need a place where conservatives and liberals can be equally at home and equally challenged.

It didn't sit well for us either, at first, as it doesn't directly refer to our "beliefs" and how those beliefs determine who become. So, I thought a better name would've been "Krista Tippett on Being and Belief." (Even those who do not believe in a god/God still hold strong beliefs about humanity and life.) But I do agree a name change was in order, as I have encountered the same dilemma of how to share the content with people of many different beliefs. I'm glad the show's content and purpose will not change, regardless of its name! Keep up the great work!

I have always enjoyed the fact that this program is inclusive of all faiths, not just Christianity. Faith to me is by its very nature all-inclusive. Even agnostics or atheists are carried through life by some form of faith, the faith in human good, for instance. Faith in something seams propelling, moving forward; being, seems to indicate something static.

Everything and anything that we talk about and are is contained within the word "Being". Reality telivision, broadcast football, soap operas, science and history programs are as validly encompassed within the word being. These programs and others capture people in the act of "Being"! Without exception all of the SOF programs thus far are about individuals interpretations of what that "Being" means, in other words, their "Faith" about their experiences. Faith is an action that requires thought and reflection. Being simply is. While I agree that the word "Being" casts a broader net, it is a title that fails to convey what this program is actually about (unless there is a plan to completely deviate from the past). It's interesting to me that SOF is viewed as an exhaused topic when it seems self evident that you've barely scratched the surface and it will continue on the same road - allbeit in denial of what is actually being discussed. It is "Faith" about "Being" and Faith" about what that means that is and I believe will continue to be the heart of this program. The new title is not simply all inclusive it is obtuse! I will continue to enjoy the fruit of Kristas & the SOF staffs efforts with much gratitude. Though I'm an advocate of worthy change it remains my contention that "Being with Krista Tippet" is an unworthy and disingenuous title for this program!

I guess that my main angst is that we are watering down our beliefs in the name of political correctness. Changing the name from "Faith" to "Being" just seems one more instance. Where do we draw theline? Phoebe in Canton, NY

The name change seems to be offering to the listeners opportunities to see the world and one's place in it, from possibly a different perspective. For me the word "faith' focuses on the mind and what beliefs we have formed in our mind during our years of living..In a sense this becomes part of one's identity as a person. Now, I see the worrd "Being" as providing a focus on the felt effect of one's experiences in living life. In other words, it is now mind and heart and bodily sensations and feelings that ;can leave room for uncertainity in our lives. It keeps the door open to new ideas and perspectives. It allows for change and growth. I would challenge those who say, "Keep the faith". It implies here that one has the "Truth" and must not doubt or stray from it. I sense that Krista Tippett is seeking to recognize the humanity of man thereby broadening the focus. Becoming human could imply a humanistic perspective which could become it's own belief system, or faith, that must ignore a spiritual aspect to man's beingness. This reduces the possibility of experiences that could open the mind to new perspectives and growth.

Was confusing to hear Being as opposed to Speaking of Faith on today's early morning broadcast. It never occurred to me the title had connotations of "religiousness" which is what I think you are referring to when you say other have difficulties with the name. Was a perfect name for the perfect forum. Yes we do transform ourselves over time but Being?... I don't think was a good idea to change but I guess we all have to learn to live with it and continue to hear the program w/o the "faith".

I too will continue to listen, learn, and enjoy, but deeply lament the name change. Your show played an important prophetic role in helping us understand that we all live by faith-- a faith that grapples with the mystery of what lies beyond us whether that faith involves God or religion, or anything we call spiritual. I am sure the name has been difficult to wear at time but that that was part of its prophetic gift and I am saddened by a name change that seeks to obsure it.

For me another gift of the show has been its effort listen to the ways people grapple with finding their place in eternity-- the larger story. Although Being doesn't preclude that it seems to make the focus more on us--more self self centered, more anthropocentric-- and less on faith-- our understandings of what lies beyond us and how we fit into that larger story.

I will continue to be a fan-- just a bit disappointed and disillusioned.

I love the new name because it will draw in people who are disillusioned with 'religion' . The real importance of religion to me and the real importance of the show to me is how I can 'be' what I have faith in the world.

Love the show, really DON"T LIKE the new name. I am disappointed at the loss of one space in my week, every week, where I could hear voices of those who are not ashamed to "speak of faith" and who are also open-minded, progressive, inclusive (unlike the usual suspects in mainstream media who "speak of faith" in words that are harsh, fearful, judgmental, self-righteous and proselytizing). The new name strikes me as far too broad, vacuous and vanilla. what a shame.

I am a huge fan of the show, listen to on my local public radio station in NYC, and when i can't tune in on Sunday morning, I listen online. I have admit that I hate the name change. I've listen to and read Krista's explanations, but I don't find them compelling in the least. This was on place where smart, passionate people of faith could speak openly about faith, and this new names seems to dilute this at best. The new name says nothing, and I fear focuses our attention more on the self and less on a greater good or purpose. When I mention it to friends I would like to encourage to listen to the show they wince at the squishy, therapeutic name. It's just not compelling, and slightly embarrassing. I hope you'll reconsider. I also wish Krista (and I'm a huge fan) didn't come across as smugly as she does in describing the name. She has an air of transcending, or moving beyond the need to speak of 'faith' and suggests that we all should too. The lack of spiritual and intellectual humility was disappointing.

It’s been a privilege these years to eavesdrop on your conversations – to realize that I benefit in an exchange of ideas that’s beyond my participation. Your podcasts accompany me on my daily walks.In response to “.., and we're looking for your ideas about what we should call ourselves on Twitter. Up to now, we've been "softweets" but soon we'll be changing our name there as well. Tell us what you think …” -- My suggestion is “betweext” – “Being” between the dichotomies of life – as explored in your podcasts over the years discussing meaning, faith, ethics, and ideas, Birth and dying, healing and suffering, joy and despair, spirituality and religiosity, charity and avarice, immanence and transcendence, etc. Thanks

I'm highly disappointed in the change of name from "Speaking of Faith" to "Being". If recent news events have taught us anything, it is the importance of having a venue where ecumenical and interfaith dialog can occur in a calm, cooperative matter. I hope that NPR is planning on introducing a new program to fill the current void in respectful, informative, and dare I say fun, theological discussion.

I would love to hear a program with 5-6 knowledgeable theologians/practitioners of various faiths covering multiple subject areas. Sometimes these could be timely news topics, such as the Israeli/Palestinian peace negotiations or why threatening to burn the Koran is such a huge deal on a theological level. Sometimes the topic would be more general, such as the theology of the environment, aging, or ethical budgeting. Occasionally issues could even be something fun like the theology of superheroes (check out Islamic influenced comic book "The 99"), the Twilight Zone, or Saturday Morning cartoons.

The most important part of such a show is that it would demonstrate that it is possible for educated practitioners of different faith backgrounds to discuss issues, including controversial ones, in ways that are respectful. Right now the only public portrayals of religion come from political opportunists on both the far right and the far left, who are more interested in promoting social agendas and screaming down the opposition than reflecting the values of a loving and accepting God. NPR is the only place where a counter-religious revolution not based on generating controversy for controversy's sake can take place.

I must admit to preferring the old name. There's a clarity about "Speaking of Faith." That said, "a rose by any other name..." I'll continue be a fan. I so appreciate your conversations with such thoughtful, diverse people. Keep up the fantastic work of shedding light on our inner "being."

I am very pleased with the new title. Had no problem with the "faith" title but this is much more inclusive and true. It is Being that brings us into this world, carries us, and takes us out again. "In God we live and move and have our being." Thank you, Krista, for a rich conversation.

Today, after thousands of comments by upset customers and observers, the retail store The Gap scrapped its new idea for a logo and brought back the original. Marka Hansen, president of Gap Brand North America, commented: "We've been listening to and watching all of the comments this past week. We heard them say over and over again they are passionate about our blue box logo, and they want it back." Dear humans behind the name change -- won't you, too, please reconsider the "Helvetica Clip-Art-like" name "Being," and bring back the beloved "Speaking of Faith" ? It's never too late. Thank you.

I just read your book "Einstein's God", and came away with a wonderful reading list of interesting books. Without doing a "Winfrey", would it be comfortable for you to list the more interesting books you have read or are reading?

This is the New Coke of ideas. I've given myself a few weeks to get used to the new name, but every time I hear it I cringe. It's really awful, a big mistake.

Speaking of Faith said to those who feel that they "own" the discussion, no, there are other opinions, other ways to look at the same things. It is a head to head discussion, which can certainly lead to a heart to heart understanding.

Being? Being what. Sounds like you're afraid to admit that there is anything spiritual going on here.

I feel the name change has drawn me deeper into the conversation and content of the program. It has enlarged the frame through which I hear and see the ideas you present. I have especially enjoyed your conversations with Jonathan Sachs.

We love the new name. It speaks to the vastly encompassing and ever-growing nature of the show and its wonderful guests. That messages of spirituality and "being" come from a broad array of minds and experience... scientists, philosophers, theologians, artists and beyond. Certainly each show leaves one with an illuminating and original insight into being.

So sad to hear about the name change. I must have been listening to a repeat the other day when I was reminded to listen in again. I have always enjoyed the show, but part of my fondness was feeling like I could be a part of a "faith" inquiry again. "On Being" doesn't sound like a show where I can hear Christian and Humanists and Scientists wrestle over hard things. On the up-side..."Journey" would have been worse. =)

I love the show but am also disappointed by the name change..."faith" inherently implies something beyond oneself, but "being" can easily be interpreted as being mainly or exclusively about the self. The relationship to community and to the divine is not necessarily implied. Surely the last thing America needs right now is further self-absorption.

Personally, I like the new name even though I had no problem with "Speaking of Faith."Unfortunately, "faith" has, for many, taken on a negative connotation just as have the words"Christian" and "Muslim." I am a retired United Methodist pastor and again and again I havebeen embarrassed by the behavior of many Christians, especially by those who discountthe validity of other religions. Your program continues to feed my soul and mind.Rev. Del RoperGrand Island, NE

I, like most of the commenters below, am deeply disappointed with this name change. It makes me cringe everytime I see it in my "favourites" list and for this reason it's the first time I've been back in two months - I still can't bring myself to listen, though.I read Krista's account and could not help but feel sorry for her as I realise the enormous pressure she must've been under to rid the program of any words that echo "religion", the word that so many in the western world have developed a societal phobia for. She speaks of the negative connotations of the word "faith", what is has come to be associated with, but doesn't consider that her program brought hope to many of us that there are still people fighting against those perversions, who recognise the transcendental quality of the word, its beauty and potential. She also hasn't considered the negative connotations of the word "being". Where do I start? I think the commentators below do a pretty good job, for my part I'll just say it sounds pretentious.The name change is supposed to make the program more hospitable to those without any spiritual or religious inclination....but it makes it INhospitable to those of us, loyal listeners, who do have a faith or belief of some kind and feel that the importance of this is being (no pun intended) snubbed. To me, being is faith, so why hide that fact? Why sink down to the level of those who misuse it? Why bring down what used to be profound discussion into menial political debate, about terrorism, cultural conflict, etc...I thought one of the aims of the show was to show how faith can be experienced, deeply and positively, in spite of its negative public reputation? I really hope you reconsider.

'One night four rabbinim were visited by an angel who awakened them and carried them to the Seventh Vault of the Seventh Heaven. There they beheld the sacred Wheel of Ezekiel.

Somewhere in the descent from Pardes, Paradise, to Earth, one Rabbi, having seen such splendour, lost his mind and wandered frothing and foaming until the end of his days. The second Rabbi was extremely cynical: "Oh, I just dreamed Ezekiel's Wheel, that was all, Nothing really happened!" The third Rabbi carried on and on about what he had seen, for he was totally obsessed. He lectured and would not stop with how it was all constructed and what it all meant...and in this way, went astray and betrayed his faith. The fourth Rabbi, who was a poet, took a paper in hand and a reed and sat near the window writing song after song praising the evening dove, his daughter in her cradle, and all the stars in the sky. And he lived his life better than before.'

It seems like the show has gone the way of the three other rabbinim - the first one nihilism, the second cynicism, and the third arrogance. Faith is surrendering to the beauty of the mystery of the cosmos, and enhancing our lives and selves with the wisdom we find. We cannot escape our 'being' in order to understand it.

Being. Ontological Being opens us to the breath of life, the fury of motion and passion, fear and future that span within us a gulf of quaking nothingness from out of which, through which, in the fleshy depths of which our life lives, our humanity lives, our participation in the cosmos lives and lives . . . Being contains within it both the silent whoosh of this breath and also the winds of the unknown, which interpenetrate us invisibly, changing us and lighting fires to us with a force unknownable yet Real.

Faith. Being contains mystery, but Faith confronts mystery. Faith begs questions that cannot be answered and in doing so reintegrates the horror of an unknowable Beyond back into the humble humanity of our daily lives. Faith does not sit on an agnostic fence, peering into the abyss. It leaps into the abyss, devouring it, domesticating it, weaving myths and yarns out of its inspiring mystery. Faith gives Being a voice with which to speak to children.

Being opens the door wide open. Faith shuts it carefully behind, lights the hearth, and turns its face warmly toward the family.

Some people might feel that the word "faith" is tied to religion and its connection to religion is lost if we cannot use it. In the beginning of my listening experience I did not listen to an entire show because of the title, "Speaking of Faith." I thought here we go again... biased opinions of religion. But how wrong I was. When I gave the show a chance I realized that the show was so much more than the old title "Speaking of Faith" led me to believe. I applaud the show's new title change. "Being" allows us to "be" who we are at that moment. I look forward to listening every Sunday night to new and old thoughtful insights/expressions from all forms of spiritual being.

I love the name change. Inspirational. Being is much more fundamental in man's knowing,or unknowing. As Heidegger said, "Why are there beings at all, instead of nothing?" Being, to me, drills the questioning to the very essence of the mystery of everything.

I cannot help but recall when, I think it was, the Esso oil company changed its name back in the 1960's. "Tony the Tiger" was their animated spokesperson, and his summary of this change was ,"We're changing our name, but not our stripes." Perhaps it's time to resurrect Tony the Tiger to help you out with your name change.

Unfortunately, I find myself neither compelled by your reasoning for a name change, nor comfortable with the name you have selected. In fact, I would go so far as to speculate that this was more a marketing decision than an expression of purpose or intent. ( Full disclosure: there is a great deal of marketing required by my job too.)

In short, faith has always been, for me, the most poetic of words. It is a word that envelopes the full spectrum of life's experiences, and allows for the breadth and depth of views. One of the great rewards of lisiting to Speaking of Faith is to realize the capacity of people to relate to something beyond themselves, in such a wide swath of ways.

On Being is a very difficult phrase to speak. Can you imagine how it is to say, "I'm turning on On Being?" Very few titles of note begin with a preposition, or are easily spoken.

But what really concerns me is that in making this decision to move away from speaking of faith (lower case intentional) you seem to have embraced the cliche that "faith" is limiting, rather than to celebrate the reality of how you and your program, Speaking of Faith, have expanded the very experience of faith in the 21st century.

Krista,First I want to thank you for your excellent program. I am very upset with your new name change. It appears as if you have caved into those who have no belief in any force or essence beyond their limited five senses. On Being by itself is a meaningless phrase. It cannot stand alone and give anyone any idea of what your program is really about. You have made a bad decision to cater to the demands of the non-believers. What do you think is going to happen to the large number of followers who are believers who will now believe that you yourself may be losing your faith? I hope I can still end this as I used to end letters to my close friends. No matter what happens on this issue, we love you Krista and,

Why the faithful are fleeing....... I too, am disappointed with the name change. Besides throwing Mr. Williams out of NPR for not "Being"---PC enough" - shows the leverage of our culture. Faith, Orthodoxy, courage to pray...Its 6:30 AM Sunday morning ...--something has changed.Sad

I heartily approve the new title for your program We live in a nation in which the word "faith" has taken on a rather restrictive meaning that implies (I think) convincing oneself to believe in that which one is not inclined to believe naturally. The mystery of existence is suggested in the word 'being'. and allows for inclusion of subject matter that is not usually considered 'religion'. Also, we have experienced such a hardening of theologies within the various churches that I feel it is time to bring into conversation the fact that we are seekers, butj that no one can ever fully plumb the depths of existence by can only think about it and discuss it. that no one can ever fully plumb the mysetery of existence, but only can discuss it. .

I think Being sounds too metaphysical for the show. I can imagine more people will be turned off by the title (can anyone really relate to Being? I have read Heidegger, Tillich, MacQuarrie extensively and I still don't know if I know what Being really is. Indeed, many of these authors were even trying to come to grips with ontology) because of this pseudo-mystical title rather than one which most people live everyday: faith. Besides, there is an entire strand of theology/philosophy which does not want to talk about God and Being at all (whether this is even a possibility) so have we taken God out of the subject of this programme? Stick with the old title. Less confusing.

NPR in NYC used to carry your show, Speaking of Faith at six in the morning, saturdays, I think. Not exactly prime time (I'd get up regularly to go to the farmers' market-had done for years), but waking up much too early on Saturday meant I needed coffee and some noise. The radio was the noise.I do not particularly like the word faith. I lost it in politicians years ago; I have heard it far too often used by Christians, Jews and Muslims to cloak their particular brands of prejudice. Nonetheless, there are people with faith, whom I would describe as those who appear, truly, to love other human beings and actually devote themselves to supporting others, the support called love, and ascribing much of what they do and feel to a God.

I started listening seriously to your show during an interview you did with a roman Catholic nun. I simply heard intellegence and goodness and proper focus from her. She was a woman I could pick up a shovel for, and dig. Now, I am jewish. Moreover, I am a very secular jewish man. I did major in philosophy in college, and primarliy was interested in the existentialists. Heidigger, the German author of Being and Time was also a nazi sympathizer, maybe a nazi, I must say I've forgotten. Sartre and Camus were in the Resistance. Sartre wrote Being and Nothingness. I don't recommend either book as light reading. But the Frenchmen-and women-were tied to humanity, and the Heidigger work, in its best light, is purely abstract. Wagner, loved by the nazis, was an anti-semite, and Nietsche was used by them, inappropriely, I thought,as the justification of theit concept of the superman. Now, had the nazis stuck to the correct (marvel comic) good guy we all know is the superman, history might be different, but they didn't.

I think my point is that the word being is not one that has been particularly well defined. I think you have the same right all the afrementioned had to try to define the word. It is a mystical one. It certainly can be a religious one.

I do believe being is a deeper and broader word than faith. I am sure you know the homily "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition" Now, you've got a show title where you may, in fact, need to do both. Good luck. You are no longer in teh 6 am slot here in the city, but I will be looking for you

As a regular meditator and student of Buddhism, I love the new name of your program. The show never fails to stimulate spiritual thinking in me and offer new insights. My background is Roman Catholic, Jewish and Protestant, and my choice is agnostic Buddhism, but I am open to all ideas that lead to a peaceful, loving world population. Compassion, generosity, patience and mindfulness will gently take us to this goal.

I still find it unsettling that the new name is so completely vague about its intentions!

What in life is not about "Being" and what program on public or commercial radio is unconcerned with "Being"? Being in sports, being in local or international affairs, cooking, entertainment, etc, etc, etc. All of these are concerned with "Being" but are straight forward with their expression of what aspect of being they are concerned with.

It seems to me that the program continues to orbit the topic of Faith. What the guests continue to address is their Faith, that is to say- what they believe and how they interpret their experiences and knowledge of life.

The empirical (certainly important) is not the focus, but rather, guests continue "Speaking of Faith" but the title is no longer honest about what it is doing!

I had lapsed a bit in my listening, and was surprised to come back and find this name change, b ut all the experiences you describe were ones I had as well. Talking to my mostly-atheist family about the wonderful ideas and conversations you present was difficult at best, and impossible at worst. May the new title allow more conversation and discussion in more families of all persuasions, religious and non-religious alike.